ISSN 2330-717X

Bernie Sanders’ Conservative Foreign Policy – OpEd

By

It is obvious that Bernie Sanders functions as the political “sheepdog” of the 2016 presidential election. The sheepdog makes certain that otherwise disillusioned Democrats are energized enough to stay in line and support the eventual candidate, in this case Hillary Clinton. That is reason enough to oppose his campaign but it isn’t the only one. A hard look at Sanders on foreign policy issues shows that he is a progressive poseur, a phony, a conservative Democrat, and not a socialist by any means.

The Sanders website looks like every other candidate’s with a bio, donation information and of course “Bernie on the issues.” But it seems that Bernie doesn’t have any opinions on foreign policy because they are nowhere to be found. How can he be a serious presidential contender if he doesn’t discuss foreign policy? How does he differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton or Republicans if he won’t state for the record how his foreign policy differs from theirs? The truth is obvious. He isn’t a serious contender and his foreign policy views are no different from those of the other candidates.

Sanders’ candidacy is as grave a danger to the rest of the world as that of his rivals. In no way does he challenge the belief that the United States has the right to determine the fates of millions of people without regard to their human rights. He doesn’t believe that other nations have the right to oppose what the United States chooses to impose upon them.

Sanders makes quite a big deal about voting against the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and says he wants United States troops to leave that nation for good. But he never says that this intervention was wrong. He never said that the United States had no right to destroy that country or kill its people. He never said that these interventions are war crimes and violations of international law. Instead he speaks of the efficacy of particular interventions and how they impact Americans.

A presidential campaign should be an opportune moment to say that the Islamic State, ISIS, is a creation of the United States. Instead Sanders repeats that the United States must defeat this force but he only differs slightly in saying that he wants the Saudis to spend their money doing it. “I’ll be damned if kids in the state of Vermont – or taxpayers in the state of Vermont – have to defend the royal Saudi family, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.” That mealy mouthed opinion does nothing to end the premise of an American right to do what it wants anywhere in the world. Imagine if Sanders was willing to talk about support for jihadists going back nearly forty years and how each one delivers a more terrifying result.

In 2011 Obama was bombing Libya and planning to kill its president but Sanders didn’t see it as being particularly problematic. He repeated almost verbatim the rationales that assassinated a president and destroyed a nation. “Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I’m not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action will be ending very, very shortly.” Libya’s obliteration was no problem for Sanders as long as the process didn’t take very long.

In 2015 the Bernie Sanders foreign policy still does not digress from American political orthodoxy. He doesn’t question American policy towards Russia. “Well you totally isolate him [Putin] politically. You totally isolate him economically.” “Freeze assets that the Russian government has all over the world.” At no time did Sanders oppose the American policy of intervening in Ukraine and expanding NATO in eastern Europe, the actions which created the current confrontation with Russia. He doesn’t question why the United States has the right to dictate policy to another nation or interfere in its sphere of influence.

Sanders supports the Iran nuclear energy agreement with the P5+1 nations, but issues the same dishonest rationales about it expressed by president Obama. Sanders doesn’t say that Iran was never a nuclear power, an easily provable fact. He doesn’t question the sanctions which forced Iran to the table or point out that the 25 years of inspections called for in the agreement are a violation of Iran’s sovereignty. Instead he repeats the discredited mantra that the United States must make war in order to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear nation when even the CIA said that it never had that capability.

The big elephant in the room, Israel, gets the standard Bernie Sanders treatment. When Israel killed 2,000 people in Gaza in 2014 he would only say that Israel “over reacted.” He didn’t like being questioned about his stance either. When protesters interrupted a speech he told them to shut up and repeated nonsense about Hamas missiles that rarely hit their targets while Israel massacred a civilian population.

When Sanders speaks out against American interventions he couches his opposition in terms of spending money at home instead of abroad. That is somewhat admirable, but there is no reason to cut the defense budget as he says he wants to do, if there is no change in how this country attempts to dominate the rest of the world.

The Sanders campaign may be an interesting footnote, but it won’t bring about needed conversation about United States imperialism. The supposedly socialist senator never even uses that word. There is blatant dishonesty in claiming to want a changed domestic policy in the United States without also changing foreign policy. The two are linked, and American workers can’t have a living wage or health care as long as imperialism goes unchecked. Liberals can’t claim superiority to followers of Donald Trump if they consent to war crimes and human rights violations. Their only requirement seems to be that Democrats ought to be in charge of the carnage. Sanders wouldn’t be a very good sheepdog if there weren’t so many willing sheep.

Margaret Kimberley

Margaret Kimberley

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR (http://www.blackagendareport.com), and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.com.

7 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders’ Conservative Foreign Policy – OpEd

  • Avatar
    August 27, 2015 at 6:40 pm
    Permalink

    You obviously don’t know what “conservative” means in the USA.

    Reply
    • Avatar
      August 28, 2015 at 1:15 am
      Permalink

      If this dishonest article is the normal in black agenda report, it would explain why Bernie isn’t getting support from African Americans.

      Reply
  • Avatar
    August 27, 2015 at 9:31 pm
    Permalink

    what an absolutely totally biased article. Sounds like Ms. Kimberly was paid by the clinton campaign to write this article…or even better yet, by the republican national committee. The way he has voted in terms of foreign policy is certainly a guideline on his positions. I think all the rest of the candidates have made their positions perfectly clear. They all voted for the Iraq war. Perhaps Mr. Sanders is playing it cool for a reason. As the song goes “you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em….know when to walk away, know when to run…you never count your money…when you’re sitting at the table, there’ll be time enough for counting, when the dealings done”

    . Just because he hasn’t expounded on his policies, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have one. It’s very early in the process and he’s very smart to let everyone else show their hands first. As most main stream media journalists do, Ms. Kimberly is jumping to conclusions.

    Reply
    • Avatar
      August 29, 2015 at 4:51 pm
      Permalink

      This website features a conspicuous amount of articles which favor Rand Paul. The writers also seem to find very little need to criticize the Koch brothers.

      Reply
  • Avatar
    August 28, 2015 at 12:23 pm
    Permalink

    I think that Bernie’s scheme for dealing with ISIS is a good one. Let the Saudis and other middle east oil oligarchs step up and foot the bill.
    We don’t need U.S. boots on the ground.
    You can’t blame Bernie for neo-con fossil fuel adventurism.

    Reply
  • Avatar
    August 29, 2015 at 10:43 am
    Permalink

    What has been written here by Ms. Kimberley is a prime example of why we should stand up against SWCAU
    (ie: Stupid Web Commentary As Usual.) Please go off to your DNC and RNC fundraising luncheons, Ms. Kimberley, and leave us alone. It’ time to finally put this country back into the hands of progressive adults who will actually accomplish something positive.

    Reply
  • Avatar
    August 31, 2015 at 3:51 am
    Permalink

    This article makes absolutely no sense. He voted no to the Iraq invasion because he knew it would make the region unstable but he voted yes to funding the war after we invaded , that makes sense because once we have our troops there we need to make sure they can get the job done. He is in the middle on foreign policy he understands when the u.s. needs to get involved and when to not get involved. He was against Obama and Hillary’s 2011 Libya campaign , and he understands that in order to beat ISIS other middle eastern countries need to get involved because it is not just our obligation to fight ISIS. He would be a great commander in chief , understands when and when not to put our troops in danger.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.